Well what happened with Diebold and Bush starting a war with Iran? On a serious note,I for one am not really that upset. We got rid of Chaffee and a bunch of wimpy moderates. The conservatives will have mor epower now, and if the dems that got elected stick to what they campaigned on, the house might end up being more conservative anyway. The dems will play the next two years way too cautious, and if unemployment goes up from 4.4, (which it will) they will have some explaining to do. I really wish Steele would have won, and I would love for Bush to find a spot for him in his administration. When the libs see what type of conservatives they actually elected,, they are gonna flip. lets see how much they love Tester and Webb when they start voting against them. Lieberman pretty much owns the dems now. He is the kingmaker, and he owes the republican party big.

Not to mention the impending running of Al Franken in the Minnesota Senate race of 2008...

Looks like CNN's campaigning has worked. Congratulations, CNN, you now control the house.

In Maryland, Mikulski is up for re-election, but she's also getting on in years.

Here's my longstanding rant about Senator Mikulski. After voting against confirming Bush Sr's Secretary of Defense nominee John Tower, she likened Tower's adultery to "conduct unbecoming of an officer" and thus unacceptable in the peron holding the #2 position in the military chain of command. But when Bill Clinton, who held the #1 position in the chain of command, was impeached for perjury arising from his adultery, Mikulski voted not to convict him. Her position on the relevance of private life behavior to public office seems to have changed. Did her views on this matter change over time (1989-1999), or with the party of the offender? Or is it just easier to punish a nominee than an incumbent?

Not to mention the impending running of Al Franken in the Minnesota Senate race of 2008

I don't know whether to laugh or be very, very afraid.

oh.
for.
crying.
out.
loud.

ALREADY?

OK.

Here are the Repubs that are going to lose in 2008:

Allard (CO)
Colemann (MN)
Smith (OR)
Sununu (NH)

I wonder when the first poll comes out...

You are so right.

Keep your head high.

A battle was lost, that’s democracy. But the war is far from over.

I believe that this election was one solely on the 6 year itch, and the constant barraging and lying by the MSM. Nothing else.

When this Country sees the hypocrite that Pelosi is and the whoremonger that Reid is, we have 2008.

Let’s hope that the President can keep terrorism in check for the next few years.

I am with you and will be reading you daily.

Remember what a wise man once said -- you can believe what you want but facts do not change.

Chin up and all that rot.

Bill Wine

The whole idea that the MSM is more powerful this year than it was in 2004 and 2002 is just silly.

The MSM is weaker, guys.

The 6 year itch is a big factor, if history is a guide. But the MSM didn't do this.

Some conservatives on this site and elsewhere desperately need someone else to blame.

Look in the mirror, guys.

Hey, I have a question. . .Now that the Dems control both houses of Congress. . .

Are you guys still in favor of eliminating the filibuster? Are you still for governing as if a majority of one means a mandate (not a "Man Date" in the closeted GOP interpretation ; )

Are you still for locking the minority party out of all conferences, commitees, and decision-making?

Personally, I'm still against changing the rules of the Senate to eliminate the filibuster, but I want to find out if you guys are still consistent?

A serious question for all of you about Speaker-Elect Pelosi:

Why is it that a former wrestling coach who represents DeKalb and Batavia, Illinois is somehow more representative of America than the Congresswoman from one of our nation's most diverse cities?

Also, can anyone provide evidence of her so-called "kookery"? Mark likes to call people names and exhibit vitriolic rage and acidic condescension at anyone who doesn't agree with him, but I rarely see him back up his rhetoric. I concede, Mark, that you're intelligent and passionate, but I don't see a lot of evidence, which makes you seem like the fringes of your side, the Coulter/Hannity cabal that seems disconnected with reality. Surely you knew that your people were getting their clock cleaned on Tuesday. You knew it would happen somewhere, didn't you? I really wonder.

Pelosi voted against partial birth abortions ... voted against parental notification for children having abortions ... voted against most, if not all, military defense programs ... the list goes on and on. Do a search on lefty Pelosi and you'll learn more about her.

correction ... she voted against a ban on partial birth abortions ...

Pelosi voted against partial birth abortions ... voted against parental notification for children having abortions ...

Guiliani is also against all bans on partial birth abortions and parental notification! Incidentally, this puts him to the left of Hilary Clinton, who favors partial-birth ban except when the mother's life is endangered. He is also pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, and was quite similar to Clinton on most social issues. Is Guiliani also a "kook"?

Yet, he is your presumptive nominee for 2008?

Yet, he is your presumptive nominee for 2008?

--Not mine. He won't come close to making the nomination.

"Pelosi voted against partial birth abortions ... voted against parental notification for children having abortions "

Shouldn't you be happy she voted against partial birth abortions? I know what you meant, nevermind.

On both issues, here's the reasons.

She voted against the _ban_ on partial-birth because it did not make sufficient provisions for the life of the mother. I am married and I have a child. If my wife were in labor and I had to choose between raising a child on my own and letting her die, or saving her and dealing with the loss of our child and move forward together, I would choose my wife. Others might make a different choice, as is their right. "Kimberly4Bush" believes that Americans don't deserve that choice. I profoundly disagree, as do most reasonable Americans.

As for parental notification, there is no provision for cases where there is parental abuse, or the possibility of incest. That is barbaric.

You radical rightwingers get all protective of the fetus, but you show little if any compassion for those people once they exit the womb and live in poverty or other dire circumstances. Pelosi, like Kerry, has voted against military spending when it was detrimental to our domestic issues. As with the 87 billion, Kerry and Pelosi wanted that money for Iraq to come out of the pockets of the wealthiest Americans by repealing Bush's cuts on those who make over 200 grand. But "Kimberly4Bush" is so drunk on the Kool-Aid that she conveniently leaves out the details.

People like her are so conditioned by Rove and the MSM to live and die by the sound byte. You think that whatever Rush tells you must be the facts, and you don't bother to read any perspective that might conflict with you. That's why I spend time on radical, fringe rightwing blogs, because you people, while wrong in my opinion much of the time, are part of America and I seek all points of view. There have been times over the years where I've had my mind changed by conservatives, particularly the ones who aren't consumed by hatred or the ones, apparently like "kimberly4bush", who think that Republicans have the monopoly on morality and Christian values. I say voting for people who despise the poor is as far from Christ as it gets, but that's just me. Yes, I know y'all "pull up by the bootstrap" types don't get that America isn't a fair playing field for everyone. Black people will always have a profound disadvantage in America, as will other minorities. But instead of trying to heal from that, the radical rightwingers like "kimberly4bush" want to spend taxpayer dollars "saving marriage" from two men in love enough to commit for life.

Logical, no?

Im with Rich on the first post, it was good to jettison some deadwood even though it cost us; if Chafee was our one guy to keep a majority we would still be out in the cold.

And Leo, I now have indigestion from your mention of Franken(stein) running for MN senate, we already have enough kookballs in this state...like Congressman Cair Ellison. No way Franken(stein) beats Coleman, but why do I have to suffer through such an electoral circus? Why does Minnesota have all the liberal goonbags?

Coulterfan,
Despite sharing some of Guiliani's libertarian views (with which of course banning guns is terribly inconsistent), I do not share your clouded vision. He is too liberal to get our party's nomination in the same way that McCain tends to be too liberal to withstand conservative scrutiny. For the very reason you mention, many conservatives aren't going to trouble themselves to get out and vote for someone who will allow partial birth abortions.

Jim Oliver,
I agree that the MSM is weaker. What I'm confused about is how you interpret this to be a failure of conservative ideology while acknowledging the six year itch effect when the six year itch predicted a loss of 29 house seats and six senate seats, and the Republicans actually lost only 27 house seats and only five senate seats? If conservative ideology or performance in the war in Iraq were the actual problems, then republicans would have lost more seats, not less, than average. To paraphrase the Clintonoids, "It's not the war, stupid."

Mark,
Nice post. I'm with you a 100% on Jindal. He could really be a conservative with the charisma of a Barack Obama. Unfortunately, the people of my state are a bunch of idiots who elected not only drunk-acceptance-speech Blanco, but also re-elected Nagin, and sent cold-cash William Jefferson to a run off with a lead over his contenders. Fortunately, they were also smart enough to elect W twice and to put all our republican representatives back in office. There may be hope for us, yet.

Personally, I'm still against changing the rules of the Senate to eliminate the filibuster, but I want to find out if you guys are still consistent?

Lets see how consistent the left is, especially after hearing Pelosi talk of 'reaching out' to the other side.

Are you still in favor of 'minority party' rights (not the kind of party that regularly occurred at Bernie Sanders apartment)? Do you still favor a 'Gang of 14' for judicial decisions? Are you still in favor of the idea that a turnabout in the power structure does not mean you automatically have a mandate?

coulterfan:

Hey, I have a question. . .Now that the Dems control both houses of Congress. . .

Are you guys still in favor of eliminating the filibuster?

Yes, absolutely. There is currently no legitimate reason for a filibuster. The only purpose is to prevent calling a vote that would garner a majority... in other words, one that is favored by most of the country's legitimate representatives.

There may have been some decent reasons for it when it first became the rule, but those reasons no longer apply. Get rid of it, whoever is in control.

RE:Filibuster

It's so satisfying, I hate to admit, watching the Radical Right wringing their hands over the filibuster. If the GOP had eliminated it, you people would have cheered it at the time, and talked about that "enduring majority" of the Repubs. Now that the power has shifted for now, you're terrified.

I personally think that the filibuster should stay, because it's an important tool. But how nice it would have been to have Fristy shoot his party in the foot way back when...

Morris,

I don't see this as a failure of conservative ideology, only that the Repubs are now failing to be conservative.

The six year itch is less significant since 1990, when Gerrymandering became so prevalent. Without the Gerrymandering the Repubs would have lost even more seats. Since the Dems now control more statehouses, and may (with luck) continue to do so through 2010, expect massive Republican losses in 2012 with the new Dem-Gerrymandered districts.

I also see additional Repub losses in 2008, as some of the Repubs were going to retire this year but were persuaded not to do so by the Repub leadership. I don't see many (if any) Dem retirees this year, but many Repub ones, leaving a bunch more seats open. Plus with all the money flowing to the Dems now, expect more vigorous campaigs from them for a while.

So I see Dem gains in 2008, and massive gains in 2012 if we can gain/hold the state houses.

DougW ... You're a funny guy! How nice of you to assume I don't care about the poor, which I do, or that I listen to Rush on a daily basis, which I don't.

• Pelosi voted against every Republican tax cut.
• Pelosi voted for the largest tax increase in history.
• Pelosi voted 19 times against eliminating the death tax.
• Pelosi voted five times for raising gasoline taxes
• Pelosi is so pro-high taxes she was one of only 27 members to vote against tax relief for poor neighborhoods in the inner city (presumably including her constituents in San Francisco ).
So much for her caring about poor people!!
• Pelosi voted against the historic Welfare Reform Bill and later voted against its reauthorization.
• Pelosi voted against protecting the right to say "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
• Pelosi voted against requiring that voters be identified so we could ensure only legal citizens are voting.
• Pelosi voted against requiring English on ballots.
• Pelosi refused to side with homeowners against the Kelo decision that allows cities to seize private property for profitable ventures, even though 365 members voted to stop cities from taking private property.
• Pelosi has voted at least three times against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (Laci's law), and scored a perfect 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
• Pelosi voted at least 31 times for using local or federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.
• Pelosi voted against building a fence on the border to protect America from terrorists.
• Before 9/11, Pelosi repeatedly voted to cut intelligence (in 1993 by $500 million) and after 9/11 she has still voted to cut intelligence (in 2004 she voted to withhold 25 percent of intelligence funds).
• When you ask why we were not more prepared for 9/11, remember that six months before Sept. 11, 2001, Pelosi voted to decrease proposed defense spending by $65 billion.
• The next time you think about North Korean nuclear tests and North Korean efforts to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile to reach the United States , remember that in 2002, Pelosi voted for an amendment to the FY 2003 Defense authorization that would block FY 2003 funding for space-based missile defense programs.
• Pelosi led a faction of 124 House Democrats who voted against final passage of the Patriot Act's reauthorization.
• Pelosi voted against creation of Homeland Security Department.
• Pelosi was one of only 33 members to vote against prohibiting U.S. citizens and companies from conducting any financial transaction with countries that have been identified by the State Department as active sponsors of terrorism.
• In 2004, Pelosi voted against House passage of the intelligence overhaul bill, which reorganized 15 intelligence agencies under one Director of National Intelligence.

And btw, I've never listened to Rush in my life. I also volunteer for BB/BS, give generously to charities, traveled to New Orleans with my church to rebuild a home, etc. So quit assuming because you know the old saying about that ... it makes an ass out of u.

xxxooo

Last night was a bracing wake up call to all Republicans to get back to strong, traditional Republican values. Take the '06 elections as a warning and as an opportunity to re-discover the strength of true Republican values and virtues, GOP! The 2008 presidential race is close at hand.

I listen to Rush all the time, he is quite entertaining.

For opposing views, I like to listen to liberal radio such as Air Ameri....oh crap, sorry. Didnt mean to reopen the wound.

There will be no dem gains in 2008, the only ones made this year were conservative democrats who now have some tough choices to make; listen to the liberal party or listen to the conservative constituency. Do they get voted out by the people or shredded by the dem leadership...tough choices, tough choices indeed.

The dems threw 95%-liberal Liebermann under the bus when he strayed from the reservation, what would happen to a freshman democrat if he dared voice opposition?

Two years of liberal control will be enough for America to realize the change they yearned for wasnt such a wise decision.

Liberal values my gun-toting, truck-drivin', Bible-thumping butt.

Kimberly4bush,

Unlike you, I agree with most of the votes you mentioned. Funny too, is that apparently so do most Americans. So the real question for you is, why do you hate America?

Sorry but don't you get the message yet?

A question for you dems, why did Schumer say they are not going to get rid of Bush's tax cuts today? He claimed they would only go after the top 1 percent. You have been bitching for 6 years about the tax cuts, now you have a chance to get rid of them, and you won't. Why is that? Is it just politics, or will you admit that they worked? Also, it will be nice having you all join the war on terror finally. I am looking forward to your new plan for Iraq, how you will fight terrorism, and how you will improve the economy from 4.4 percent unemployment and an all time high dow jones. You see where the bar is, we will see how you do in 2 years.

No surprise there, 3moreyears/third eye open or whatever you decide to call yourself every couple of months, that you agree with most of Pelosi's votes. You're a neorad.

And, your question of hating America, in my opinion, is reserved for you and your ilk.

As far as most Americans agreeing with those votes, that's BS and you know it. Most voters are not educated on the political system, and probably had no idea or even cared to look into Pelosi's votes.

Mark, I'd love to see the Republicans gain Senate seats in '08, but unfortunately it seems tremendously unlikely to happen. The Republicans will have 21 seats to defend, the Dems only 12, and they head in with a 1-seat majority. Remember, the Republicans won all the close races in '02, like the Democrats this year. The Democrats will face the same problem in 6 years that the Republicans are facing in '08.

It's very important for the GOP to retain the White House in '08...

Yes, the long awaited, much anticipated, double secret, democratic plan for Iraq. Been waiting for this one. It involves redeploying the troops to Samoa, where they will be ready to deploy within 478 hours of an emergency in Iraq.

Bush/Cheney impeachment? Skip the trial, they are fascist republicans and therefore guilty of SOMETHING, whatever that something is can be worked out after they have been executed.

The economy? Dont tell me, it involves 'income redistribution' or some similar benign-sounding euphamism, right? Robin Hood would be proud, I have too much money anyway.

4.4% unemployment, well, drastically hiking the minimum wage and taxes will take care of that quickly enough. Plus you get more victims to exploit.

War on terror? Perhaps you could have Rangel head the committee to fight the war 'smarter' and simply do what he does, reclassify our enemy as "so-called terrorists" and POOF! No more problem. America wont be attacked by so-called terrorists.

Record setting stock market? Work your magic with a hike in the capital gains tax and bring the market down to more realistic levels, around 6000 will do. Who needs a prosperous 401k when you have the democrats watching over you? Bonus: the increased minimum wage will also work here.

Abortion? Simply reclassify anyone that hasnt yet taken a breath as 'tissue' and toss them in the incinerator. Rename 'partial-birth abortion' to 'multi-limbed lumpectomy' and call it good.

Second amendment? It just clogs up the page between the first and third amendments, so abolish it and blame the founding fathers for not being able to count.

Gay marriage? Easy Peasy. Allow anyone to marry anything they want; trees, dogs, their living room couch, children, then get a few activist judges to uphold your decision. Gay marriage will be seen as normal compared to that.

Halliburton? Demolish the company, imprison the employees, burn the buildings and salt the ground. Evil needs to be utterly destroyed.

There, all the democratic plans laid out in an easy to read format. Enjoy!

3moreyears- Its laughable that you believe most of America agrees with Pelosi. If that were the case, you guys would not have run all of these conservative dems this time around. You just don't get that you true libs are going to be thrown under the bus. Your reps. are gonna tack to the middle so fast your head will explode. You guys will be wondering why you worked so hard to get these dinos elected in the first place.

First things first. Can I get everybody to put their hands together for the next speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi!!!!!!

Now down to business. You people staked out here in the ole' echo chamber just don't get it. You hitched your fate to an empty suit (George W. Bush, in case you didn't get the memo) and it cost you. Because you didn't recognize him for the incompetent and ignorant nimrod he truly is, you have allowed his bungling to set your cause back at least a decade. Hence, it will be about a decade before the republicans will every gain a congressional majority again.

The good news is that it will give you folks enough time to fine tune your message and drag it kicking and screaming into the mainstream and the 21st century. Gone are the days when you can scare and bully people to fall in behind you or fool some of the people that you're somehow more "holy" than anybody who doesn't call themselves a republican.

Good news, Part 2. The democrats are perfectly capable of blowing this windfall. Should they not recognize what the people expect of them now that they are back in control of congress, the republicans will have an easier time of taking control back, obviously starting with the oval office. The people have demanded checks and balances. They are tired of seeing a congress that has allowed a retarded drunken so-called cowboy to literally get away with murder. He needs to be held accountable for what he has done (and not done) during his time in office. If an impeachment is in order, then so be it. The democrats cannot be scared to pull that trigger. If they are, they will find themselves back in the minority before long.

From Drudge...
Preliminary: Senate Ballots cast:
31,591,495 (D)
25,054,569 (R)

That's over 6.5 million more people who rejected the GOP. So much for the conservative silent majority...I never thought y'all were all that silent anyway...

"Clinton...who favors partial-birth ban except when the mother's life is endangered."

Quoted from a post by coulterfan and jumped on by DougW. The thing is, there is absolutely NO circumstance in which a late-term abortion can possibly protect the life of the mother.

This gets ignored every time it is posted, because it doesn't fit into the Liberal pro-abortion stance, but here goes....

If the life of a woman is threatened by a pregnancy, that means she is vulnerable and probably should be protected from trauma and stress. The LEAST traumatic way of ending a late-term pregnancy, from the mother's perspective, is via a Cesearean section---the surgical removal of the baby. This can be done quickly and painlessly, under a local anesthetic. The mother does not have to undergo contractions, with their attendant stresses, much less expansion of the vagina and cervix, as she has to do with a vaginal birth.

There is only one problem with ending a problematic pregnancy with a C-section----it results in a live, breathing, baby.

A late-term partial birth abortion, on the other hand, is extremely traumatic, physcially, for the mother. Or I should say "pregnant woman" as the term "mother" is a joke in such a circumstance.

First, labor must be induced. It is well-known that induced labor is often far more lengthy, and painful, than normally-occurring labor, with stronger contractions. While the pain itself can be controlled, the stresses on the body are immense. Heart rate and respiration rise dramatically. There is risk of hemmorage for a truly at-risk woman.

Then, the baby must be manually manipulated, within the womb, so it is presented feet-first---what is known as a "breech" position. Again, this is not a normal birthing position, and puts more strain on the woman. But it is essential that the baby be presented feet first, as if it takes a breath it cannot be legally killed. So this manipulation is crucial to the process.

Now the woman must endure the actual killing of the baby, which is held in a position in which it is nearly fully exposed, with only the head kept within the birth canal, while a sharp instrument (often just the points of scissors) is shoved through the tender tissue at the base of the skull and then moved vigorously around, to create enough brain damage to kill the child. (Some more advanced baby-killers prefer to penetrate the skull with the tip of a suction device, which then vacuums the brains out of a living child.)The baby, who is far enough along to live if only allowed to slip that extra few inches out of the birth canal, tends to react pretty violently to this agonizing end to its life---what would, in other circumstances, accurately be defined as "torture". Not that I am saying the woman would have any EMOTIONAL trauma, having already decided on this course of action, but it might be physically uncomfortable for her.

So, two questions to you partial-birth abortion supporters.

1. How can going through labor and the manipulation of the child to bring it out feet first possibly be less damaging or threatening to an at-risk woman than a C-section?

2. Why, having gone through 99% of the birth, can't the child simply be allowed to be born? Letting it slip that extra few inches out of the birth canal is certainly not going to add to the physical stresses on the woman. If anything, forcing the child to remain partially within the birth canal while the life is taken is likely to be more stressful than simply allowing the head to slip out.

I apologize for the gruesome description, but it is accurate, and I think if people are going to be proponents of an action they should do so with full knowledge of the reality of that action.

So, Doug, once your beloved wife has undergone the stresses of induced labor and had a "doctor's" hands inside her womb to forcibly reposition the child, and then gone through 99% of the actual birth process, how would killing the child at that moment "protect" her life?

You say you have a child. If you were present at that child's birth, the first time you held it in your arms was approximately a minute or two after the time in which its life could have been legally taken in a brutal and barbaric manner. Those few seconds are literally the only difference between life and an agonizing death.

Don't you ever question the rhetoric you are fed? Haven't you ever taken the time to actually learn what a "partial birth abortion" really IS? Haven't you bothered to find out what it involves? Haven't you questioned the assertion that it could, possibly, protect a pregnant woman from stress and trauma? Don't you think that in a true life-or-death situation, such as the one presented here, you have a moral and possibly legal obligation to find out just what it is, that you are supporting?

This is not exactly the same as being vaguely in favor of some abstract concept. This is literally life and death, the gruesome death of a truly innocent child, and you both seem quite comfortable with promoting its legality without any responsibility for even knowing what your position means.

And don't you ever wonder what the true agenda might be for anyone promoting a practice as incomprensible as this one? Don't you wonder, or care, why anyone would try so hard to convince you that there is a valid reason for doing such a thing?

Rich-

Your premise if off. The Dems haven't been bitching about all the tax cuts. A president Gore would have cut taxes as well. There was a surplus. It made sense. Bush's cuts were structured on the old trickle down principle. The vast majority of cuts went to the wealthy and the Dems wanted less cuts for them in favor of spending more on the social programs so reviled by the Radical Extremist Rightwing that currently runs the GOP.

Schumer wants to let the top 1 percent cuts expire and begin to balance the budget.

Ethan spews: "They are tired of seeing a congress that has allowed a retarded drunken so-called cowboy to literally get away with murder."

See why there is absolutely no respect whatsoever for the radical Left? It's because they are not only nuts, they are mean-spirited vicious nuts with no respect for the truth.

Now, if he hadn't thrown in that "so-called cowboy" thing, I would just have assumed he was talking about Teddy Kennedy. But as Teddy has never in any way approached the persona of strength, courage, and decency that the word "cowboy" embraces, he must be channeling the Airhead loser brigade, which glories in its ability to spoon feed total garbage to drooling mouthbreathers like Ethan, fully confident that their pap will be gleefully regurgitated at every opportunity as the afore-mentioned DMB tries to convince an unconvinced world that he has any semblance of a brain.

Almiranta-

I've actually researched the matter extensively and even spoken with actual, gasp, OB-GYNs. Suffice it to say that your description is incomplete and partially devoid of fact. But I know nothing will change your mind. You've accepted something blindly as black and white and you allow for no discussion.

This is why you lost yesterday. Get used to it unless you gain some perspective.

I wonder, why is it really your concern whether a woman gets a partial-birth abortion? Are you going to take care of it if she does not? What is YOUR plan for these unplanned children? Never hear an answer to that one, do you? As for "losethebongos" (stupid name, btw) understanding that homosexual marriage is the same as marrying a dog, well, it just shows how out of touch Reps really are...

Kevin,

Actually, we answered that question about 2,000 years ago when we Christians determined that procuring and abortion was a deadly sin - from that time until now, we will pay whatever price it takes to help a woman give birth to and see to the safety of her child. If you know a woman in dire straights, just contact me and I'll put her in touch with the scores of Christian groups which are ready, willing and able to provide whatever assistence she needs, no questions asked.

Doug,

That's cool - the Democrats scored nearly half the votes GW did in 2004...so much for a massive desire for a Democrat majority...

Doug,

And, uh, we've already begun to balance the budget...and if you think for a moment that the Democrats will actually engage in spending restraint then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell ya...

Kimberly4bush,

Unlike you, I agree with most of the votes you mentioned. Funny too, is that apparently so do most Americans. So the real question for you is, why do you hate America?

Sorry but don't you get the message yet?

Posted by: 3moreyears at November 8, 2006 08:47 PM

Sad thing is for the next two years we get to listen to boneheads like this!

Do you really think America is liberal bonhead? I thought this was a referendam on the war! That's what you guys have been saying at least.

Listen TMY, You guys have about as crystal clear an agenda as you had four or five years ago, yet none knows what the hell it is still to this day(except Mikey Moore & George Soros), but that's O.K., you go ahead and treat America like it is liberal, they'll have you out on your a..es in a heartbeat!

Some quick replies on the future:

1. This election was a toughy no question there. The fact that California had some of the biggest wins for the Repulicans is an odd thing to see. (All but one of the props [I don't count 90 since measure O here in San Berdino County is better] went the Republicans way and up and down the state we had lots of local wins including here in Barstow. :) ) I don't see this as being a "huge wave" any more than I see any election as a "huge wave" for any one party. The majority almost always loses seats in a mid-term election, so what else is new?

2. The Filibuster. I think it should have been removed back when they were talking about it because it was the Senate's option. If they wanted to change their own rules in the way they're allowed so be it. They didn't, so if the Republican's filibuster and the Dems finally change the rule fine. Right now Filibusters are still in so we deal with things as they are.

3. Abortion. This comes up all over the place doesn't it? I'm a bit more Liberal than Mark and some other's here but that's fine. I'm for attacking this issue at every point in the chain, starting with proper education (not just handing out condoms. Sheesh), birth control, contraception (including the morning after pill), and adoption information. No baby should be "unwanted" and even if it is there should be an easier way for folks to put their babies up for adoption. For those who care about the "poor" who's poorer than a baby whose own mother doesn't want him/her?

4. Gun control. On the surface the NRA member in me is worried. Unless these guys who campaigned as being pro-gun actually are (and I fully admit there are some good Pro-gun Dems out there) I worry about a Democrat controled legislature. I've got enough trouble with stupid California legislatures taking away my gun rights, I don't need the federal government butting in too.

5. Nancy Pelosi. Why is she a nutjob, a wacko, a crazy? *Chuckles* Because she's from San Fran. :p

No seriously here in California we get way more of her antics then is generally available. She is as far left as she can get without being in the Pacific ocean. She represents the lefties well though, I'll give her that. She doesn't hide or pretend she's something else, she's quite honest with what she is and what she represents. I can't wait until the rest of the nation and not just the lefties here in California get to know her as well as we do. :D

In conclusion I'd just like to thank everyone who did vote. I am glad you folks took the time out of your lives to make your voices heard in the only poll that counts. I salute you and look forward to fighting with you or against you in the years to come.

*Salute!*

Wow, Mark, after 6 years in office, you are "starting" to balance the budget. Commendable. However, peoples memories are not as short as you think, they can still remember the Clinton Administration balancing budget after budget after budget while Regan was all in the red, Bush Sr was all in the red, and Bush Jr was and is still all in the red.

The foundation of Neo-conservatism is that defecits and debt do not matter and fiscal responsibility is unimportant.

That being said, it is clear that YOU Mark as the last person who should be speaking about balanced budgets. When the last time a republican sat in the presidential chair and balanced just 1 single budget Mark??

Doug: "I've actually researched the matter extensively and even spoken with actual, gasp, OB-GYNs. Suffice it to say that your description is incomplete and partially devoid of fact. But I know nothing will change your mind. You've accepted something blindly as black and white and you allow for no discussion."

Please Doug, tell me how is Almiranta's description of partial birth abortion 'incomplete and partially devoid of fact'?

"What is YOUR plan for these unplanned children? "

So Kevin, YOUR plan for "these unplanned children" is to kill them?

I agree with Kevin and his Modest Proposal. All children that do not have parents should be eaten.

The Democrats will not win the White House in 2008. The American people are not going to rush back into the same mess. A divided government is what works. It worked in the 1990's and it will work again now. Only fools think one party should have the Executive branch and the Congress and the Senate....